so maybe you have me confused with someone else...
Yup. sherbetbizarre is a pretty common name. That multiplied with your writing style and tone is merely a coincidence.
As for "honing in on details rather than the broad topic" - how on Earth is that a bad thing???
Paints you as doing anything to make your views seem correct rather than have an interesting discussion that casual observers want to talk part in or even read for that matter.
Why do you think most people conclude this was an out-and-out hoax? It's because they read "passing comments" like yours and take them on board as the truth.
Well, the Amityville "haunting" took place 30+/- years ago...not many people REALLY care about it anymore. All you're going to get is passing comments. All of the different facets of the entire incident (murders, alleged haunting, post-book/movie mania) are interesting...but not in a way that most people are going to tireless research every detail and nuance of the case.
The bottom line is that only a handful of people know what happened the night of the murders and none of 'em are talking. One of them refuses to give a consistent or logical story about what actually happened.
As for the alleged haunting, only handful of people know what actually happened. And none of them seem to have stories that align with each other. If they were on trial, they'd be convicted...because no one can keep their story straight from one telling to the other (and if I were fanatical about this case...then I'd insert a carefully-researched bibliography here about every interview and every instance in which their story has changed. But since Amityville for me, like the overwhelming majority of the people on Earth, only holds a slight interest...I don't really care to compile such a bibliography simply to prove a point in an online p*ssing contest). Also, the fact that there hasn't been, to my knowledge, a firm statement from anyone that's lived in the house before or since that anything spooky was going on doesn't really lend much credibility to the Lutzes.
I apoligise for calling you drunk btw, it was just a reference to the "bottle of wine" thing and I should have made that clearer.
Yes, you should have. Remember that online is text and not the inflection of your voice. I'm sure had I heard you say it, it would have been hysterically funny. But I didn't...and it wasn't.
And speaking of evidence, how has George "contantly changed his story" as you stated in your original post?
It's pretty much known that George, Kathy, and the kids (whatever their names are or whatever they've changed them to) all have different stories about what happened and that details in the book change from printing to printing. If this were a common occurance (and George described the haunting as all of them having their own experiences...which seems like a convenient way to write off any inconsistencies), then I'd buy it. But I've never heard of anyone having a similar experience with a haunting.
I will say this...it's the publisher's fault through and through. Had the original publisher of "The Amityville Horror" not splashed "A true story" across the front of that book and said "Based on true events"...or made it clear in a disclaimer that liberties were taken for dramatic effect...the story might have a little more credibility.
That being said, there are other interesting topics on this message board that I'd love to discuss. Discussing anything with die-hard Amityville fans or those involved with the haunting, always seems to degrade into he-said-she-said/prove-every-word nastiness. It's just not worth it.
So, Jason, it was good to see you again. Enjoy yourself. I'm off to the crypto board to read about a new bigfoot video.
).
